SHIPBOARD LINE TRANSECT SURVEYS OF CRABEATER SEAL ABUNDANCE IN THE PACK‐ICE OFF EAST ANTARCTICA: EVALUATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examine the extent to which the assumptions underlying line transect sampling are satisfied in shipboard surveys of crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophaga) hauled out on the Antarctic pack‐ice. Measurement of the perpendicular distance of seal groups from the ship with an electronic inclinometer fitted to a rifle stock was unbiased. Crabeater seals showed little movement in response to the approaching ship. Movement away from the ship by seals close to the ship's track was partially responsible for a relative lack of sightings close to the transect‐line, but otherwise had little effect on the sighting histogram. Minor deviations from the transect direction to avoid running over seals violated the assumption of uniform distribution of groups, and contributed to a relative lack in sightings close to (<40 m) the transect‐line. We estimate that 5%‐10% of seal groups close to the transect‐line were not sighted by bridge observers prior to passing abeam of the ship, but most of these missed groups were likely to have been sighted some distance behind‐abeam. Shipboard transects provided a biased sample of four environmental features known to be related to crabeater seal abundance because of logistical difficulties in the ship traversing along straight transects through thick ice. Calculation of transect length L from successive GPS locations was mildly sensitive to the frequency of locations. We provide analytical recommendations to reduce or eliminate the effect of assumption violation when present and hence minimize bias in abundance estimation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".